To RAW or not to RAW...

[Nail]

Ain't disagreeing fun?

 

[KarinsDad]

Honestly, I guess because no one has bothered to point out what specifically is ambiguous in my choices. They continue to address how they would have worded it...which I appreciate, because that will help me word things in the future.

But no one has pointed to what I wrote and indicated parts of it they don't understand.

It is not that people do not understand your choices. They do. It is not that your choices are ambiguous. They are not.

It is that several people here have told you that you are missing an important category that they use in their game and you refuse to believe that.

I even gave you an example where RAW + House Rules differs drastically from Casual + House Rules.

My thread. My way or the highway. Hmmm. :\

 

[Nail]

You've asked how your wording "is ambiguous". Just for giggles, I'll take you up on that request.

RAW - Strict use of the rules as they are written, period.

What's Ambiguous: When you use the word "Strict", do you mean "always follow what's written even when ambiguous" or "when there is ambiguity in the RAW, pick one of the possible interpretations"?

Many of us would say that since some peices of RAW are ambiguous, there is simply no way to do the former option.

Casual Rules - An interpretation of the rules based on what the players and GM can agree to. This may sometimes include going against the RAW, if the group thinks it makes sense. EDIT: My intent for this option is that the changes would not be so significant as to be considered House Rules, since that has its own option. It would basically be your groups version of the rules as you interpret them to be intended.

What's Ambiguous: "Casual" has a definition that does not fit with your intent. To wit:

casual (adjective)
1. chance or unpremeditated: happening or done by chance or without prior thought or planning

This option strongly implies - despite your claims to the contrary - that a person using "Casual Rules" simply makes the rules up as he goes along, i.e. little to no advance planning or continuity.


I'm not sure how much plainer I can be with this. :\

Casual Rules with some House Rules - This is really a blend of Casual Rules and some of your own rules. This may include a blend a 3.0 and 3.5 rules or the like.

What's Ambiguous: The phrase "House Rules" means all sorts of things, which is why this option of your poll is so frustrating.

Strictly speaking, "House Rules" means rules that are substantially different than those normally agreed upon. It's clear that you think "House Rules" means anything other than the Rules As they are Written.....which broadens the definition so far, it becomes useless.

Given that you are mis-using the phrase "House Rules" with the equally misused phrase "Casual Rules"....you can see why other posters have been confused.

House Rules - Whole aspects of your game differ from the published material in distinct and significant ways.

What's Ambiguous: Several of us have House Rules which clarify existing RAW. Others of us have House Rules that replace or remove portions of the RAW. These are substantially different things. Just saying the word "differ" is not enough clarification of your intent.


.......(whew!) There. Done.

Now, since the idea of a poll is to gage public activity, and your present poll has been shown by many (not just myself) to be (unintentionally, we presume) misleading, perhaps you/me/someone could post another poll, with better options?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Amen, Bro!

I don't particularly care how other people's House Rules work, or what they think "makes sense". I just want to know how the RAW works. That's what this forum is for.

I must point out (and I hope that Nail isn't saying this) that the rules forum is not ONLY for those who want to know how the RAW works.

This forum is for people to discuss the rules and that includes their interpretations of the rules, how other people use the rules and all manner of things which go above and beyond "how the RAW works". I think "casual rules" is actually an excellent description to use for those who are interested in using rules in a way that makes sense (how you interpret existing rules) as against brand new rules components (aka house rules).

People have been banned in the past for acting as 'RAW-bigots' in this forum.

I don't want anyone to be mistaken on that point.

Regards

 

[Nail]

I must point out (and I hope that Nail isn't saying this) that the rules forum is not ONLY for those who want to know how the RAW works.

I agree that posters to this forum are NOT required to use or write strict interpretations of the rules, nor are they forbidden from posting possible remedies to rules that are ambiguous, misleading, or nonsensical.

I sincerely hope my posts do not imply such exclusion.

That said, I find the most valuable posts explain how the rules work as written, rather than on how a particular poster thinks the rules should be changed to conform to "common sense".

My favorite example of the latter, FWIW, is the intersection of the feat Cleave with AoOs.

 

[Cedric]

My thread. My way or the highway. Hmmm. :\

First, I apologize if it seemed that way. I never meant to alienate people with my choices. I just intended for "Rules as Written" to be an absolute.

I dislike using analogies to make an example, because I usually find them inadequate, but in this case I'm drawn to using one.

If you consider the RAW to be a recipe for a pie...

If you use the RAW, that would be the same (in my example) as baking the pie by precisely following the written recipe. If you decide to add a quarter teaspoon of cinnamon, it may improve your pie, but you are no longer following the recipe as it is written. So you can't say you baked the pie exactly according to the recipe.

In this example, you could not say you are using the "rules as written" if you are adding to those rules.

That having been said, very seldom do people follow a recipe precisely as it is written. Likewise, I expect there are very few people who use the 3.5 RAW precisely...and there's nothing wrong with that. I bet I could swallow some of the ambiguous rules a lot better if you sprinkled some cinnamon on them.

 

[Cedric]

You've asked how your wording "is ambiguous". Just for giggles, I'll take you up on that request. What's Ambiguous: When you use the word "Strict", do you mean "always follow what's written even when ambiguous" or "when there is ambiguity in the RAW, pick one of the possible interpretations"?

Many of us would say that since some peices of RAW are ambiguous, there is simply no way to do the former option.

First of all, excellent feedback, thank you. I see what you mean. Everything is subject to interpretation, what is clear to some will be ambiguous to others (if nothing else this thread should make that clear, heh). My intention here was that you use the "Rules as Written" as precisely as you can determine them. Even if that leaves a loophole or obvious conflict, you stick with it, because it's written that way.

What's Ambiguous: "Casual" has a definition that does not fit with your intent. To wit:


This option strongly implies - despite your claims to the contrary - that a person using "Casual Rules" simply makes the rules up as he goes along, i.e. little to no advance planning or continuity.


I'm not sure how much plainer I can be with this. :\

I agree (and have said so in other posts in this thread) that casual was not the 'best' word, but that I had been unable to think of one that fits more precisely. Maybe "interpretted rules" instead of casual rules? But I don't think that works better.

So, in essence I described what I meant by casual and provided some examples which were not intended to be all inclusive. That was the best I felt I could do.

What's Ambiguous: The phrase "House Rules" means all sorts of things, which is why this option of your poll is so frustrating.

Strictly speaking, "House Rules" means rules that are substantially different than those normally agreed upon. It's clear that you think "House Rules" means anything other than the Rules As they are Written.....which broadens the definition so far, it becomes useless.

I tried to provide a distinction between my terminology 'casual rules' and the subsequent term 'house rules'. In that, while both are deviations from the "Rules as Written" the latter represents a degree of deviation that extends far beyond the former. Again I provided an example that was not intended to be all inclusive.

Given that you are mis-using the phrase "House Rules" with the equally misused phrase "Casual Rules"....you can see why other posters have been confused.
What's Ambiguous: Several of us have House Rules which clarify existing RAW. Others of us have House Rules that replace or remove portions of the RAW. These are substantially different things. Just saying the word "differ" is not enough clarification of your intent.

In this case I really think the difficulty stems from the fact that the terms have multiple definitions and multiple uses. The uses that exist in your game environment are obviously different from the manner in which I used the terms for this poll. I would implore people to look beyond the actual terminology of the selection to the explanations and examples. And from that make their choice.

That having been said though, the poll results have come out largely as I expected they would.

1. Very few people precisely use the "rules as they are written".
2. A large group of people play the game as they can best determine the rules were meant to be used.
3. Most people add aspects to their game that go beyond the strict (core) published material in some distinct and notable faction.
4. There are a small group of people who have taken the existing game and altered it to be a significant and fundamentally different game, with some elements or aspects of the underlying game remaining intact.

(Each of the above corresponds to the order of choices in my poll).

Now, since the idea of a poll is to gage public activity, and your present poll has been shown by many (not just myself) to be (unintentionally, we presume) misleading, perhaps you/me/someone could post another poll, with better options?

Provided other posters and moderators do not mind I would absolutely support a second poll with what someone considered to be better options as they understand the game, the rules and the use of both.

 

[Nail]

A very thoughtful response, Cedric. Thank you.